Young getting a cheat reputation

[GazX]

Man United 4-0 Aston Villa: 'Disgrace' Young in cheat storm!!
//

Ashley Young was branded "a disgrace" by fellow Premier League player Ryan Taylor after the Manchester United star was involved in yet another penalty controversy in this afternoon's hammering of Aston Villa.

Wayne Rooney converted the sixth-minute spot-kick and added another, with Danny Welbeck and Nani also on target as United responded in perfect fashion to Manchester City's six-goal salvo yesterday to re-establish a five-point lead at the top of the Premier League.
Villa remain in trouble, six points clear of third-bottom Bolton, who also have a game in hand.
But, with four games to go, it is the battle at the top that is concentrating minds, and the behaviour of Young that is provoking ire.

Seven days ago, the former Aston Villa man was at the centre of a diving row when he went down under minimal contact from Shaun Derry.
As the FA upheld Derry's suspension, Young's behaviour was excused, even if his reputation took a knock.
Now there will be more questions about his willingness to bend the rules.
Newcastle's Taylor led the chorus of disapproval, branding Young "an absolute disgrace" on Twitter, adding: "He's the biggest cheat in the league. His antics are a joke."
The comment was hastily removed, although not before reaction had flashed around the world.
England legend Gary Lineker suggested Young could end up with an unwanted reputation if he keeps reacting in this way.

Read more http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news...cle890896.html

[Lazie]

LOL!!! MU win a game and losers start mek up noise. When Dzeko won a penalty against Sunderland, the SAME way ... I didn't hear these jokers calling him a disgrace ... if its good for Man City ... it is good for MU.

People a talk bout minimal contact ... well ... mininal or maximum contact .... penalty ....

[GazX]

LOL!!! MU win a game and losers start mek up noise. When Dzeko won a penalty against Sunderland, the SAME way ... I didn't hear these jokers calling him a disgrace ... if its good for Man City ... it is good for MU.

People a talk bout minimal contact ... well ... mininal or maximum contact .... penalty ....

So football has now become a NON CONTACT sport?

[Lazie]

So football has now become a NON CONTACT sport?

Whatever that means ... twas a penalty ...who waan complain can knock demselves out. My team need to ensure they get 3 points against Everton.

[GazX]

Whatever that means ... twas a penalty ...who waan complain can knock demselves out. My team need to ensure they get 3 points against Everton.

It means that there is, or was a responsibility for players to attempt to stay on their feet if possible when there is/was some kind of contact.
How can players today who are stronger, fitter, bigger, than ever go down easier than ever at the slightest brush of them shirt?
The game is ruining itself by fast becoming a farce and a joke.

[Paul Marin]

LOL!!! MU win a game and losers start mek up noise. When Dzeko won a penalty against Sunderland, the SAME way ... I didn't hear these jokers calling him a disgrace ... if its good for Man City ... it is good for MU.

People a talk bout minimal contact ... well ... mininal or maximum contact .... penalty ....

No Lazie - the Dzeko penalty was questionable - he could have dived, but it was no where near as blatant as Young's ... i.e. there is ZERO question that Young dived. Plus there is the folly of last week's red card. The implication of that kind of play for Young is that other Prem players will not take to it lightly. Villa had little chance of winning that game, but diving your way to a trophy is for little clubs.

[Karl]

Referreing...at least in my time...also included

using commonsense.

Ashley Young dived (or as American's term it - He dove! ). The referee was well placed and has no excuse for attempting to have us believe he has not been used to running around and. thus does not know dragging the leg that should be into the 'next step'... next phase of forward motion is unnatural. No one on GOD's earth plants one leg and during the next running stride does not move the 'free leg' forward and into 'knee lift' motion.

To be fair - this ref is not the only one who has been taking us all for a ride. Among others, BoyU's then player, Cristiano Ronaldo, was allowed to do the same thing...pull the same nonsense move time and time again.

To return to the Young incident: The fair ref's call would be a caution to Young. It is never fair (ref's main duty in managing a game is to ensure fairness within confines of Laws of the Game and IFAB Regulations) to award phantom fouls. All referees and fans know there will be physical contact between players (from opposing teams and between teammates) the refs job is to use commonsense in applying the Laws and Regulations...decide when there is incidental contact or deliberate or reckless contact. Specific to the match the ref would have us believe Young's reaction to the contact determined his action as there is no way the way that occurred in any way unfairly impeded Ashley Young.

...as to Young's flop? There are clear instructions on how a ref should respond.

Aside: In the old days a good ref would have just ignored Young's dive.

[Lazie]

It means that there is, or was a responsibility for players to attempt to stay on their feet if possible when there is/was some kind of contact.
How can players today who are stronger, fitter, bigger, than ever go down easier than ever at the slightest brush of them shirt?
The game is ruining itself by fast becoming a farce and a joke.

So lets see .... I illegally tackle you in the box, you're telling me its your responsibility to stay on your feet? Really? Yet after stumbling and staying on your feet, the chance to shoot or create a shooting opportunity is gone.

People need to stop the hypocrisy. Dzeko went down under the same tackle .... yet no fuss ... but when Young is fouled everybody tun expert?

Please. As for the argument bout game become a farce and joke .... mi see John Terry duh a NFL tackle and tek out bout 3 Spurs players ... no foul ... shot is taken which was stopped on the line but was given as a goal. Yet ..... because Young didn't stay on his feet after he was fouled .... cho .....

[Lazie]

No Lazie - the Dzeko penalty was questionable - he could have dived, but it was no where near as blatant as Young's ... i.e. there is ZERO question that Young dived. Plus there is the folly of last week's red card. The implication of that kind of play for Young is that other Prem players will not take to it lightly. Villa had little chance of winning that game, but diving your way to a trophy is for little clubs.

.... Paul this is the hypocrisy of which I speak. Dzeko's was a penalty ... yet Young's isn't? Be consistent nuh dude?

[Lazie]

using commonsense.

Ashley Young dived (or as American's term it - He dove! ). The referee was well placed and has no excuse for attempting to have us believe he has not been used to running around and. thus does not know dragging the leg that should be into the 'next step'... next phase of forward motion is unnatural. No one on GOD's earth plants one leg and during the next running stride does not move the 'free leg' forward and into 'knee lift' motion.

To be fair - this ref is not the only one who has been taking us all for a ride. Among others, BoyU's then player, Cristiano Ronaldo, was allowed to do the same thing...pull the same nonsense move time and time again.

To return to the Young incident: The fair ref's call would be a caution to Young. It is never fair (ref's main duty in managing a game is to ensure fairness within confines of Laws of the Game and IFAB Regulations) to award phantom fouls. All referees and fans know there will be physical contact between players (from opposing teams and between teammates) the refs job is to use commonsense in applying the Laws and Regulations...decide when there is incidental contact or deliberate or reckless contact. Specific to the match the ref would have us believe Young's reaction to the contact determined his action as there is no way the way that occurred in any way unfairly impeded Ashley Young.

...as to Young's flop? There are clear instructions on how a ref should respond.

Aside: In the old days a good ref would have just ignored Young's dive.

Common sense wasn't vey common then. Local refs used to mek up their own idiot rules. Keeper cyaan bounce the ball before kicking it out ... yet when mi watch football international and WC games big time keepers were doing it. A player cyaan say leave ... bout commonsense.

[Karl]

So lets see .... I illegally tackle you in the box, you're telling me its your responsibility to stay on your feet? Really? Yet after stumbling and staying on your feet, the chance to shoot or create a shooting opportunity is gone.

People need to stop the hypocrisy. Dzeko went down under the same tackle .... yet no fuss ... but when Young is fouled everybody tun expert?

Please. As for the argument bout game become a farce and joke .... mi see John Terry duh a NFL tackle and tek out bout 3 Spurs players ... no foul ... shot is taken which was stopped on the line but was given as a goal. Yet ..... because Young didn't stay on his feet after he was fouled .... cho .....

Gross ignorance appears to be guiding your argument.
1. Staying on ones feet does not determine whether or not a foul has occurred. There was either a foul or there wasn't! Staying on ones feet is in that context is immaterial.

2. ...and being impeded to the extent that a goalscoring opportunity or in the wider context playing the ball is lost only determines ref's action on whether or not an advantage was denied.

3. That determination by the ref on whether or not a goalscoring opportunity or whether or not player was unfairly prevented from playing the ball comes into play, not on whether a caution or explusion is applied but on whether or not 'play-on' or 'stopping of play' is decision.

The matter of any other action by the ref is governed by the Decisions of the IFAB - i.e. it could be ref's betermination that caution on next stoppage is warranted.

Note: If expulsion is ref's determination, play must be stopped and that action (expulsion of offender) taken or in case of goal being scored simultaneously by team against which offense was committed; goal allowed, offending player sent-off before re-start of game.

[Lazie]

Gross ignorance appears to be guiding your argument.
1. Staying on ones feet does not determine whether or not a foul has occurred. There was either a foul or there wasn't! Staying on ones feet is in that context is immaterial.

2. ...and being impeded to the extent that a goalscoring opportunity or in the wider context playing the ball is lost only determines ref's action on whether or not an advantage was denied.

3. That determination by the ref on whether or not a goalscoring opportunity or whether or not player was unfairly prevented from playing the ball comes into play, not on whether a caution or explusion is applied but on whether or not 'play-on' or 'stopping of play' is decision.
The matter of any other action by the ref is governed by the Decisions of the IFAB - i.e. caution on next stoppage. Note if expulsion is ref's determination, play must be stopped and that action taken.

Ignorance ... call it that if you want. If Bale had left the ball yesterday after Ade was fouled by the keeper ... it would have been a red to the keeper and a penalty.


" Staying on ones feet does not determine whether or not a foul has occurred. There was either a foul or there wasn't! Staying on ones feet is in that context is immaterial. "

Sorry having a complete Portia moment here. How many times a player has been fouled, but attempted to stay on his feet ... and because a pass was completed the ref waved play on? The fact is the players' feet came together ... foul. Did Young put an exclamation on the fall ... yes, but it doesn't change the fact it was a foul. Young simply put the decision in the ref's hand.

[Karl]

Ignorance ... call it that if you want. If Bale had left the ball yesterday after Ade was fouled by the keeper ... it would have been a red to the keeper and a penalty.

So?

[quote]

" Staying on ones feet does not determine whether or not a foul has occurred. There was either a foul or there wasn't! Staying on ones feet is in that context is immaterial. "

Sorry having a complete Portia moment here. How many times a player has been fouled, but attempted to stay on his feet ... and because a pass was completed the ref waved play on? [./quote]

Many are the times a ref has allowed play to go on...awarding the so called "advantage"...so what?

The fact is the players' feet came together ... foul. Did Young put an exclamation on the fall ... yes, but it doesn't change the fact it was a foul. Young simply put the decision in the ref's hand.

Well we disagree here - I saw "no foul"! I saw a dive!!! ...a player throwing to ground.

[Lazie]

[quote=Karl;351502]So?

[quote]

" Staying on ones feet does not determine whether or not a foul has occurred. There was either a foul or there wasn't! Staying on ones feet is in that context is immaterial. "

Sorry having a complete Portia moment here. How many times a player has been fouled, but attempted to stay on his feet ... and because a pass was completed the ref waved play on?

Many are the times a ref has allowed play to go on...awarding the so called "advantage"...so what?



Well we disagree here - I saw "no foul"! I saw a dive!!! ...a player throwing to ground.

See ... it nuh mek no sense ... I am right .. you are WRONG. You're not going to accept that it was a foul. You PM and Gazx can sing kumbayah!

Karl, here's an example .....

"..... Shane Long go all the way through against QPR and get pulled and shoved and tugged from behind, he stays on his feet, knocks the shot past the goal, looks around at the referee for help and nothing happens"

Sometimes one need to accept that they're being fouled.

"I saw "no foul"! " .... LOL .... joke of the day.

[Karl]

Common sense wasn't vey common then. Local refs used to mek up their own idiot rules. Keeper cyaan bounce the ball before kicking it out ... yet when mi watch football international and WC games big time keepers were doing it. A player cyaan say leave ... bout commonsense.

It was never about 'keeper not being allowed to 'bounce the ball'. The IFAB then instructed how long the 'keeper could retain the ball in hands (bouncing was considered continuous possession).

...and there was also at one time a ruling on how many steps the 'keeper could take with ball in his/her possession.

In both cases not to be confused with 'keeper putting the ball on ground and standing over same or playing as like an 'outplayer'. All players are allowed to retian the ball while playing with feet or just looking at ball on the ground while it (the ball) is in play.

All the unfair play like an interpretation on 'leave' was governed by instructions by the IFAB and FIFA's referees instructors. Even use of 'badwuds' were and still are governed by IFAB and FIFA's referees instructors instructions on use of commonsense.

Aside: Based on your comments you have serious gaps on knowledge of managing of games.